I do see what you mean, but I am not sure arguing all the edge cases does anything but muddy the water. I mean I would argue that a hotel (even long term) is a hotel. Honestly, I would argue that the way housing is working right now, landlords who do short-term rentals are even worse than your standard landlord. Some cities are outlawing or heavily regulating them because they are so much more damaging (to society) than the more normal longterm landlord.

Deleted by creator

Sorry, in retrospect that was entirely too flippant and answer for a pretty good discussion and question. Deleted.

Most people who are arguing that being a landlord (as a class) are arguing that using property (ownership) as an investment (extracting value) is evil by it's nature. By owning the home and living there, there is already a categorical difference. Most (although not all) people arguing against rentier behavior have no issues with a person owning personal property.

I do see your what you are trying to say, it's akin to "slippery slope" falacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

If landlords are wrong, then logically wouldn't this other more reasonable and less exploitative thing be wrong too? (renting a room in a house you own and are living in) and no, not necessarily. Because it isn't the same thing.

Or maybe not. Maybe renting out a room in a house you live in is wrong too. Frankly, it would be simpler to do away with all private property rights, and live in a star trek style egalitarian utopia. I would vote for that.

As long as I get to smuggle in some Romulan Ale.

My two cents---which is worthless (thanks inflation!):

Not unless you are taking advantage of them. It really is going to depend on the specific situation. But if you are renting to housemates you're not really the landlord class most people are talking about.

Perhaps, but doesn't the US history of hobos, homeless, company towns, and housing crisis mean...regardless of how you feel about the various flavors of socialism/communism, that the criticism is correct even if you don't like the solution?

In order for there to be any rental property at all, someone has to own it and be the landlord.

I mean yes, but all that means is there shouldn't be rental properties

Unless they think it should be the state.

You mean ppl think that housing is a human right that should be provided for and administer by "We the People" for "We the People".

I didn’t think there is much of a logical argument for having no landlords whatsoever.

What other kind of Lords do you think there isn't a logical argument against?

Who owns a hotel? Isn’t that just another type of landlord?

Surely you understand the difference between a hotel and a home. They are prima facie not the same thing. Also, we call the owners of hotels...owners. The same thing we call owners of homes. Landlords are not the same thing.

Actually, those are pretty good answers. Good on you. Have a nice night.

if I do some freelancing sometimes, should I kill myself? Asking for a friend.

It seems that you are intentionally missing the point. If you are selling your own labor, you my friend are working class.

I mean, I voted for every Dem I could. I voted as hard as I could. But I also think we should ALL be publicly outraged at how bad the two parties are.

I’m a CTO at a small medical supplier company and I work hard to make sure we’re ethical.

Good for you, tell me, what is the average wage/compensation for your company? What is the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay?

Do you know those numbers off the top of your head? Does anyone but the CFO know? If you don't know those numbers off the top of your head, you aren't really trying your best to be ethical.

I voted for Harris, and straight Dem downballot. But no, Harris did not support M4A. Harris did in fact tack to the right during her campaign to try to pick up more moderate Republicans, and this killed my (and many others) enthusiasm and her campaign.

As said in one of the other replies to this comment, it is okay to admit both parties suck. (I am not both sides-ing this, they are not the same, but they both suck for the average American)

The Democratic party has a problem, and the last 3 presidential elections prove it. The last time a Democrat ran on a message of change (Obama), they won handily. But Obama didn't deliver, and now if any Democrat promises change...well the masses are disillusioned...they don't think the Democrats actually want change, and the thing is... they are right. Party insiders don't want significant change to the systems. Biden barely won on a message of "getting back to normal"...when Americans were dying but the thousands, think about how close that race was. I voted for Biden, and Biden actually did okay, he steadied the ship....but did he change anything? Anything I could see and would effect me in my day-to-day life. No, not really. In fact, in most ways life has gotten worse since the pandemic. That may not be Biden's fault, but he was the president, fault or not. It was his responsibility. Again, nothing changed. Then Harris ran on a slogan of "Not going back".... There is no promise for a future there. Not going back is just not MAGA. I voted for Harris, I hoped as her campaign got off the ground she would distinguish herself from the failure of imagination of the Biden admin. But she kept tacking rightward, she was showing up on stage with all these "centrist" republicans, she leaned into border policy, pro-business, pro-capital, pro-war stances. The same Democratic Party schlock that keeps killing any enthusiasm for a Democratic president since Obama.

The worse things is, we all know what the problems are, and for many of them we know the solutions. They aren't easy, but there is nothing unique about the problems facing America.

"Unprecedented" Wealth Inequality has a precedence....see the gilded age and the new deal

Healthcare ... Every civilized nation has a form of nationalized healthcare, except the US.

Political Polarization.... the yellow journalism caused polarization in the 1880's. Truth in journalism laws were passed, and not repealed until Reagan.

A stagnant ineffective congress. Repeal the filibuster. Beef up ethics investigations.

A compromised judiciary. Multiple presidents throughout history have decided to just ignore the supreme court, because the court has no means of enforcement, enforcement is invested in the executive branch (checks and balances and all that). Additionally, the SC right to review a law for constitutionality was created whole cloth by the Supreme Court, and does not itself exist in the constitution. Finally, expanding the SC can be done by Presidential Order. I mean the SC can decide that it is unconstitutional....but then what....the president seats the justices anyway. Done.

Money in politics. The president is the head of the Law Enforcement branch. There are already laws on the books to shut down corruption, foreign interference, etc.. American citizens commit multiple felonies a day without even realizing it (thanks to our byzantine legal system), this is doubly true of all these Corporations and Super-PACs funneling money to and from campaigns and foreign nationals. The laws are there, the will to enforce them is not.

Most/All of this has precedence in the US or other liberal democracy. I am not saying it is easy, but I am saying that it could have been done if the Democrats wanted it.

And addressing these things has popular support. Everyone knows what is wrong, and everyone can see no one is even trying to fix it.

But instead we get slogans that amount to, "nothing will essentially change, but the other guy is worse", and then wonder why 40% of Americans don't show up to the polls.

There are a lot of people who have stopped showing up for the Democrats, not because they like Republicans, but because the Democrats stopped showing up for them.

Hegseth says it's a list of "woke" senior officers, I see a list of potential resistance leaders.